Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Vijay Sambhaji Gunware

DRT23 Oct 2024OA/655/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by HDFC Bank Limited against two borrowers for recovery of dues. The court adjusted the principal claim by deducting prepayment and cheque bouncing charges and granted relief for future interest while directions were made regarding recovery.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.99,20,341/- plus future interest at 8.25% per annum; issue Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Vijay Sambhaji Gunware — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 18.03.2022 Registered on : 22.07.2022 Decided on : 23.10.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 07 05

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 655/2022.

¶3

HDFC Bank Limited,

¶4

A Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its branch office at 21/6, Ground Floor, MIT Marathon, Bund Garden, Pune 411 001.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. Vijay Sambhaji Gunware, At Post Khadki, Taluka Daund, District Pune 413 105.

¶8

2 Mr. Shaila Vijay Gunware, At Post Khadki, Taluka Daund, District .. Defendants

¶9

Pune 413 105.

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For Applicant Advocate Pradip Yadav. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶12

Total Claim Amount – Rs.1,01,07,512/-

(OA No. 655/2022)

Page 1 of 6

Sanap

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 23^rd October, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.1,01,07,512/- together with future interest @8.25% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶19

As per the loan application of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the following loan facilities to the defendants.

¶20

*Name of the facility*	*Amount Rs.*	*Date of Agreement*
Commercial Vehicle Loan A/c No. 82974463	28,65,300	04.05.2020
Commercial Vehicle Loan A/c No. 82941567	1,75,000	28.02.2018
Commercial Vehicle Loan A/c No. 83081240	29,57,800	27.03.2018
Commercial Vehicle Loan A/c No. 83208261	2,00,000	29.05.2018
Commercial Vehicle Loan A/c No. 83462985	30,63,000	20.10.2018
Commercial Vehicle Loan A/c No. 84266670	17,48,000	18.12.2019

(OA No. 655/2022)

Page 2 of 6

Sanap

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation of Commercial Vehicles namely Ashok Leland 3718 bearing No. MH-42-T-1624, MH-42-AQ-3346 and MH-42-AQ-7800, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶25

Again the defendants approached the applicant Bank for Emergency Loan of Rs.16,90,000/- and accordingly, the applicant Bank on 17.06.2020 sanctioned Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) of Rs.16,90,000/- to the defendants. The defendants have executed facility cum Hypothecation Agreement and declaration and undertaking dated 17.06.2020, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶26

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 06.12.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated

(OA No. 655/2022)

Page 3 of 6

Sanap

30.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶32

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit 6) of Shardul Nandkumar Muli, Authorized Representative of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the copies/original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-18 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶33

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶34

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶35

The applicant Bank has claimed Prepayment charges of Rs.1,21,179/- (Rs.38,551/- + 29,323/- + 1,206/- + 822/- + 22,626/- + 28,651/-) and Cheque Bouncing Charges of Rs.65,992/- (Rs.3,717/- + 9,496/- + 10,493/- + 10,089/- + 10,721/- + 10,738/- + 10,738/-), total of Rs.1,87,171/- which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.1,01,07,512/- is reduced to Rs.99,20,341/-.

(OA No. 655/2022)

Page 4 of 6

Sanap

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, the applicant Bank has not produced hypothecation deed in respect of the Commercial Vehicles of which relief has been claimed, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶40

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @8.25% per annum. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @8.25% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶41

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(A) Original Application No.655/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶44

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.99,20,341/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Lakhs Twenty Thousand Three Hundred Forty One only) along with future interest @8.25% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 18.03.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No. 655/2022)

Page 5 of 6

Sanap

(D) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶50

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 23.10.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶51

(OA No. 655/2022)

¶52

Page 6 of 6

¶53

Sanap

Hdfc Bank v. Vijay Sambhaji Gunware

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Vijay Sambhaji Gunware

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Ajinkya Stationers Prop Mr. Satyajeet Parashuram Gokhale

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shinde Building Material Suppliers, Prop. Shashikant Vishwanath Shinde

Yes Bank versus Siraj Ismail Shekh

Union Bank of India versus Shaji Puthenpurackal

Bank of Maharashtra versus Prasad Khutwad

Union Bank of India versus Sharada Patil